In eighteenth-century Ireland, attempts to explain divine predication led to the belief that analogy provides a viable way through which we can know things about God. This belief, in turn, resulted in a controversy over divine analogy which involved numerous philosophers and theologians of the period. This essay explains how three figures in the debate understood analogy and how that understanding influenced their positions on divine analogy: William King, Peter Browne, and George Berkeley. At the height of this controversy an anonymous letter was sent to Browne, which is perhaps the best response to Browne's account. I argue that this letter is important if we are to gain a full understanding of the controversy, for two reasons. First, the letter advocates a literal explanation of divine predication and, in so doing, provides a conception of wisdom that is more detailed than other responses to Browne. Second, the letter provides the most substantial treatment of a specific argument against Browne, which focuses on how we come to know divine powers: the literal ascription of some power (e.g. wisdom) does not require that we have direct acquaintance with that power's intrinsic activity.